People v. Hastings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hastings

282 A.D.2d 545, 722 N.Y.S.2d 759, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3597

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 9, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 545 (People v. Hastings) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Hastings, 282 A.D.2d 545, 722 N.Y.S.2d 759, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3597 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered June 2, 1998, convicting him of rape in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Marlow, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s [546]*546omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly refused to suppress the defendant’s statements. The defendant was informed of his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436), understood these rights, and voluntarily waived them by continuing to speak with the officer. “Under these circumstances an implied Miranda waiver was established” (People v Scott, 154 AD2d 719; see, People v Sirno, 76 NY2d 967; People v Bridges, 226 AD2d 471; People v Davis, 55 NY2d 731).

In light of our determination, the defendant’s remaining contention is academic. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered June 2, 1998, convicting him of rape in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Marlow, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s [546]*546omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly refused to suppress the defendant’s statements. The defendant was informed of his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436), understood these rights, and voluntarily waived them by continuing to speak with the officer. “Under these circumstances an implied Miranda waiver was established” (People v Scott, 154 AD2d 719; see, People v Sirno, 76 NY2d 967; People v Bridges, 226 AD2d 471; People v Davis, 55 NY2d 731).

In light of our determination, the defendant’s remaining contention is academic. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 545, 722 N.Y.S.2d 759, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hastings-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack